With Liberty and Justice for All

So, I was in church last Sunday, and the pastor and bishop began politicizing about married folks taking a stand against gay marriage, by a follow-up to the church's rally at the State House last week. The alleged purpose being to lobby the state legislature to allow the question of gay marriage to be put on the ballot for the voters of Massachusetts to vote. I agree with the purpose, but not the means to that end. The people should get to vote on this issue.

To take things further, married couples were asked to stand in support of marriage being between a man and a woman and against… [insert rhetoric about the demon of homosexuality].

This is where I had to take a stand, by sitting down, while my wife stood. On the ride home I explained my position. While she didn't interpret the sermon in the manner that I did, she understood my position.

First and foremost I believe in the separation of church and state. Church leaders should not engage in politics, short of their right to vote, and holders of public office should knock of religious rhetoric, short of practicing their religion.

Now to be clear, I have and do understand that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I don’t need a definition of marriage added to the constitution to remind me. Furthermore, I don’t support changing the Federal constitution to include a ban against gay marriage. For one thing, it’s unconstitutional on the grounds that the issues of marriage and civil unions are for individual states to decide. Also, I believe that arguments on both extremes of this issue have divisive effects on our communities and nation by further hostility.

Case in point, the pastor continued, relating an incident of a gay rights advocates beating down a sister of the church who handed them a flyer at the previous week’s rally. It was so bad, according to the pastor, that the State Police interceded in her defense and arrest the perpetrators. Talk like that does nothing to unite a people, especially when the story is not an objective one (i.e. all sides of the story).

I felt that first of all, the pastor and leadership could have done more to bring the community together rather than separate it. Because, if the pastor is right in saying only 2% (reported that is) of the population is gay, that would mean at least 100 people in the church were gay, let’s not even start to talk to those who have had a gay experience, or gay attraction, or are on the down-low (i.e. those who say their heterosexual but are really bisexual). 100 people that for whatever reason decided to come to church on that Sunday, maybe for the first time. Subtext of gay-people-are-demons, but-the-rest-of-us-sinners-aren’t, does nothing to bring them closer to Christ.

Second, the King James Version (KJV) of the bible uses "sexual immorality", rather than the more popular "homosexuality" in later versions. The former refers to not only homosexuality, but also includes adultery and fornication. However, adultery and fornication don’t get as much airplay because they are more culturally acceptable and/or indulged in, within and without the church.

As a Christian, I know Jesus would want me to welcome ALL sinners to the church regardless of their sins “for ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23 KJV).

As far as the political debate goes, I don’t believe a ban on gay marriage, legalization of gay marriage, or a definition of marriage is the issue. The New Jersey Supreme Court decision put it best by ruling yesterday, according to the Boston Metro, that same-sex couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexuals, but not giving an OK to gay marriage, their reason being

“The issue is not about the transformation of the traditional definition of marriage, but about the unequal dispensation of benefits and privileges to one of two similarly situated classes of people.”